Firaxis stereotyping Orientals

[El Koeno]

Welcome to the real world. Western civilisation and ideas have triumphed and thus we get to write the history. Blame your ancestors not Firaxis.

I don't think that's a constructive contribution to the argument.

I myself think it is weird that they gave so many asian leaders the protective trait, and it might be because of some image Firaxis as of asians. But I don't see the problem with it really. Protective is quite a nice trait I think and I'd take it as a compliment if I were asian.

 

[Vietcong]

i agree with some of it what u say, i dont think its racism tho

i think japan is good with the prototive *sp* trait, same as for korea, since korea has been very isonlasonist for the most part.

i dont see y qin gets the trait, mao im not too sure about eather..

mao i can understand a lil more then qin

 

[Veo]

...Second - Traits are given based on gameplay, and their UUs, not just what they were historically. Imagine an Aggressive/Protective Rome (with their Praets!). Some traits were given to enhance the UU, too.


Let's not turn this into a flamewar.

Yeah I think it's pretty clear that fraxis wants to design a fun game as opposed to a history epic here, especially with civ4. I also (see this thread) wish it were true, deeper, more cultural, etc.! But oh well. It's a great game, either way. So they smudge a little history in order to nicely beef up the military (especially Qin's choks!) of the asian countries. So what if it's labeled "protective?" That army of City Garrison, Drill III (FOUR first strikes??) Choks isn't going to just sit in beijing and wait for the end of the world, is it?

not if I'm at the helm, anyway.

 

[The Q-Meister]

Out of so many non-oriental leaders, Churchill is the ONLY one who gets the protective trait. ALL four Far East leaders are labeled as protective (if you consider Mongols as Far East people, that's 4 out of 6). What is the odds?
.

Speaking of racist or Eurocentric terms, isn't "Far East" one? "Far" from whom?

I prefer East Asian and I think you should too if you want to encourage less Eurocentric attitudes.

 

[Matte979]

First I assume you think its bad to be protective, why is it bad?. The reason Japan has such a distinct and intersting culture is just because they where protective. The traits are not just a leader trait is a general historical trait of the civilzation.

What I think Firaxis based it on was, for Japan the fact that they took a path of isolation up to the mid 18 hundreds when american cruisers had to lay siege to force them to open up for trade. Chineses is also very obvious both Qin and Mao had no grand plans on attcking other countries and bolstered the internal control from outside infulences. Korean I dont know anything about except that they did not try to conquer the world.

As people mention if you dont like it change it. I wish the leaders had more than two traits to really reflect the leaders but the change was made for balance and does indead have a clear histroical connection to behaviour of the unified countries.

 

[The Q-Meister]

I don't think that's a constructive contribution to the argument.

I myself think it is weird that they gave so many asian leaders the protective trait, and it might be because of some image Firaxis as of asians. But I don't see the problem with it really. Protective is quite a nice trait I think and I'd take it as a compliment if I were asian.

I agree 100%.

Disagree or not, there is no need to be rude and arrogant to the poster. Yes, this is a Western-created game, but I think people still have the right to say something if they feel something in the game is racist. Yes "it's just a game" but you'd be surprised how much influence widely popular games like Civ can have, especially on young people, where it arguably matters most.

That being said, I do believe the original poster has exaggerated somewhat the claims of "racism" simply for giving most East Asian leaders the protective trait.

I argued before and for a very long time (not going to post all the arguments here, you can check it out on the "Latest IGN Preview thread if you like) that Mao should get at least the Philosophical trait.

Qin Shi Huang is your stongest case; there is absolutely no reason he should be given protective. The Great Wall actually did very little to protect China and was more of a landmark or national symbol of a united China than anything else. Qin Shi Huang was a conquerer, the "Bismarck" of his time and had many Asian states trembling in their boots.

So therefore, I would change:

Qin Shi Huang to Aggressive, Industrious
Mao to Philosophical, Expansive.

However, don't feel you are by any means alone with regards to leaders getting traits that don't fit them - It is surprising that Napoleon, the man who conquered nearly all of continental Europe did not get Aggressive or Imperialistic, Bismarck gets Representation as his favorite civic even though Nationhood would fit him much better, and we can go on and on from there.

And what about the Middle East civs? Their cities get the same architecture as the East Asian ones! That's pretty lazy on the part of Firaxis.

Point is, we ALL have lots of aspects of the game that we all can complain about; you are certainly not alone there. What I think is needed is a few more Southeast Asian civs like Vietnam or Thailand. And a second leader for Japan. Perhaps with these additions and a tweak here or there, the East Asian civs will be more to your (and mine) liking!

 

[Shaihulud]

What I think Firaxis based it on was, for Japan the fact that they took a path of isolation up to the mid 18 hundreds when american cruisers had to lay siege to force them to open up for trade. Chineses is also very obvious both Qin and Mao had no grand plans on attcking other countries and bolstered the internal control from outside infulences. Korean I dont know anything about except that they did not try to conquer the world.

Japanese languages were inspired in part from Chinese. In fact their cultural and religious aspects were gathered from all over asia. They have also tried attacking their neighbours with varying degree of sucess.

You can imagine China as an Empire that has enlarged itself through the ages and maintained its borders. There wasn't a Chinese identity during those days you know. They were all conquered and gradually assimilated.

I agree that Firaxis decision is nothing at all, but it is abit lazy.

 

[ChrTh]

Gameplay viewpoint: are these the Civs in the Genghis Khan scenario? Is it possible Firaxis gave them these traits in order to help the AI in the scenario?

 

[Quotey]

Mao really should be labelled as protective- think about his intentions for the Great Leap Forward (to help the Chinese people) rather than what happened. I'm not sure about the other leaders, but I can't see it being rascist.

 

[King Jason]

Also, on the note of gameplay. The chinese have an archer UU. It's highly possible both leaders got protective to take advantage of combining the trait bonus with the UU.

Whilst Tokugawa got protective because it fit him. They could have different reasonings depending on the people. Especially in cases where several traits would fit certain peoples. I'm sure The romans could be given the aggressive trait. But with the Prat? no thanks.

So honestly, It's fine to note a concern. It's entirely different matter to accuse someone of something without knowing all the details.

 

[linjon1]

I think there are those who LOVE to be offended.

I'm offended by the term Eurocentric.

I've never been to Europe.
I'm American.
Why are you stereotyping me?

 

[lobster]

I think the reason why both Chinese leaders got Protective is that the ancient Chinese army was known for their powerful bows and crossbows. They were also the first to use gunpowder weapons. The archers had been the greatest weapon against the northern nomads and I think giving them a trait that gives bonus to archers and musketeers is a good thing to do.

I'm not so sure about Korea or Japan. Japan wasn't a great archer civ IMO, at least not as great as China.

 

[Pvblivs]

For you discussers I have the following reasons why the East Asian and the English (at least with Churchill) got protective:

"Archery and Gunpowder units receive Drill I and City Garrison I automatically
Double production speed of Walls and Castle"

First protective does mean obviously the defense of their cities. No doubt the Asian peoples are remarkeable in those terms as well as Churchhill is. Second this trait is not purely defensive. Above all it strengthens archers, rifles, infantrists as well. Meaning: The longbow, cho-ko-nu, the red-coat etc. pp., they all have drill I with their leaders, with a barracks drill II and soon drill III, maybe IV against some barbs.

Which means that protective also makes strong attacking (and defending) archery and gunpowder units. And who does not know the power of the English Longbow or skill of the Chinese bowmen (movies )? Whereas you cannot say for other civs/cultures that they are world-wide know for there superior archery, rather for their imperialistic behaviour or their sophisticated bureaucracy or their traders...

I think it is just that easy and has few to do with "hey they're all protective" because they're all the same great isolationists. Though that MIGHT be one aspect among others playing into this.

 

[So?]

Come *on*, someone had to get the protective traits and they basically picked the civs/leaders that you could make a reasonable argument for and that they didn't have a better trait for. Not what I'd describe as racism.

Mao: He sent a million man army into Korea, spurred by the fear that a UN force near his borders was a precursor to invasion...if that's not protective, I demand to know what is.
Qin: Anyone who builds the world's most famous wall to keep out barbarian invaders is certainly justifiably described as 'protective' -- even if you think there are other traits that fit him as well.
Tokugawa: Japan was isolationist to a point rarely seen in history for multiple centuries before the Meji era...and after they opened up they MOST certainly were aggressive. In a period of less than a century, they went from a feudal economy to a regional empire, fighting wars with the Russians, Germans, and Americans, as well as invading and conquering Korea, China, Vietnam, and a number of smaller regions.
Wang Kon: To be fair, I don't know much about Wang Kon, so I can't say.

 

[MisterBarca]

Come *on*, someone had to get the protective traits and they basically picked the civs/leaders that you could make a reasonable argument for and that they didn't have a better trait for. Not what I'd describe as racism.

Mao: He sent a million man army into Korea, spurred by the fear that a UN force near his borders was a precursor to invasion...if that's not protective, I demand to know what is.
Qin: Anyone who builds the world's most famous wall to keep out barbarian invaders is certainly justifiably described as 'protective' -- even if you think there are other traits that fit him as well.
Tokugawa: Japan was isolationist to a point rarely seen in history for multiple centuries before the Meji era...and after they opened up they MOST certainly were aggressive. In a period of less than a century, they went from a feudal economy to a regional empire, fighting wars with the Russians, Germans, and Americans, as well as invading and conquering Korea, China, Vietnam, and a number of smaller regions.
Wang Kon: To be fair, I don't know much about Wang Kon, so I can't say.

A welcome dose of rationality on this forum.

 

[drkodos]

I think "oriental" is suppossed to be a racist term. Think "Asian" is the accepted word. Yes, racist remarks are still used- in this case by the poster complaining about it.

Good catch.


Amazing how Americans never get upset at being labeled Amwerican despite the fact that moniker is attached to cheese. And as for the term Oriental, well it actuall refer to a part of the word that is know to some people as the Orient.

I promise to not get upset when people call me an Occidental.

 

[The Q-Meister]

Mao: He sent a million man army into Korea, spurred by the fear that a UN force near his borders was a precursor to invasion...if that's not protective, I demand to know what is.
Qin: Anyone who builds the world's most famous wall to keep out barbarian invaders is certainly justifiably described as 'protective' -- even if you think there are other traits that fit him as well.

I stated before that the racism charge by the original poster in this instance is unfounded and exaggerated. However, I do have some issues with a few of your assertions:

Mao: Sending a million man army to another country to intervene in another country's affairs is protectionist?!?! I am not making a judgment call on whether it was right or a wrong for Mao to do this, but sending large armies across another country's borders is by definition, not protectionist. A Protectionist attitude to me would be entrenching your army right outside that country's borders to prepare for an attack; getting ready for a defensive war than than an offensive one.

Nethertheless, Mao did other things, such as building up the Chinese army, industrializing China, making China into a nuclear power that might warrant for me the trait Protectionist. I don't think the example you just gave was a very good one.


Qin- As stated before and many times by others, the Great Wall was not truly designed for militarily defensive purposes and did very little to defend China. It was more of a national symbol or landmark than anything else. Besides, what Qin Shi Huang is most notable for is uniting all of China; he did so militarily by invading and conquering other Chinese states.

So what is more relevant historically - Building a wall that was of little military value and basically symbolic or uniting by military force the many states of China to become one of the most powerful nations on Earth???

I hope you will agree that the latter is far more significant. Thus, Qin Shi Huang should not be given protective.

I wholeheartedly agree with you on Tokugawa btw.

 

[dc82]

Wikipedia:

"Major objections to the use of Oriental are chiefly limited to North America. Its use is much less controversial in Europe and Hawaii (despite Hawaii's location, which is east of the Orient), as well as in Asia where, especially in south-east Asian countries, the word is in comparatively widespread usage."

This is not like saying "Chinx". As a Chinese I can guarantee you most Chinese use this term and are not aware of this word being derogatory. Well, since you mention it maybe I shouldn't use it any more from now on, at least when I'm in N. America.

Um... none of my Chinese, Korean, or Japanese friends use the word Oriental, and being Chinese myself I know I would say Asian and not Oriental. In fact, some of my friends will correct anyone who calls them an Oriental, often pointing that rugs are oriental, not people.

You skipped out a whole section on wiki on why many may find Oriental offensive. Either way, as I said, if anything using that is prob. more directly derogatory than the civ attributes that were distruted among all the civs.

 

[Monker]

Gameplay viewpoint: are these the Civs in the Genghis Khan scenario? Is it possible Firaxis gave them these traits in order to help the AI in the scenario?

I doubt they would change the gameplay of the standard game just for one scenario.

 

[Brota]

Just wanted to get something clear. The Great Wall of China wasn't really built by Qin Shi Huang. He just reinforced and expanded the walls built by Wei, Yan, Zhao and other minor states. To be send off to build The Great Wall was actually a criminal punishment in the state of Qin. But at one point, 50% of Qin's population were considered criminals because of Qin's strict Legalist system. The first men who rebelled against Qin were soilders who were late for their deployment due to the weather. And as a punishment for their delay, they'd be either sent to build Qin Shi Huang's tomb or the Great Wall. And the officers and their family were to be put to death.